According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"

As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.

Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.

Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City born and raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.

To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.

To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.

To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.

To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.

To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.

To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the election."

To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.

To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.

Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.

Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values." Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?

Link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/)

Wally_in_Cincy

11-15-2004, 09:35 AM

could not have said it better myself

thanks

Wally &lt;~~ BTW, did M Moore bother to shave before his appearance sitting next to President Carter?

crawdaddio

11-15-2004, 10:17 AM

Did you poll "most americans" to find your data? I think not. I am not a democrat, and while you make some valid points, your information is severely skewed.

I completely disagree with the following:

[ QUOTE ]
But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt.................

Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. <hr /></blockquote>

Whatever your belief is, "values" is a very difficult word to define politically without involving religion in some way.

Just my opinion as, apparently, not one of "most americans".
(Show me a poll)

Nice try Wally. It does nothing to prove the specifics of the original post.

Peace
~DC

Ross

11-15-2004, 11:45 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> Why Democrats are tagged as the party without values

Dennis Prager

According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: "How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?"

As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican only 10 years ago, I would like to answer Gov. Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.

Gov. Napolitano, your party does indeed have very many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.

Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City born and raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.

To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.

<font color="blue">The BS in this paragraph alone is amazing. So in what way is Michael Moore a Marxist? Labels are easy - Bush is a fascist. See how easy that was? MM has contempt for most of his fellow Americans?? What is the evidence for that? Because he is highly critical of this administration and the war? MM is a radical??? How so? He doesn't call for violence or overthrowing the government. Yes he is to the left of the mainstream and even to the left of most of the Dems. So what? He certainly isn't farther left than Zell Miller is to the right. And Zell, unlike MM, was made a keynote speaker of the Rep. Convention!
</font color>

To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.
<font color="blue">Al Sharpton is a "hero" to the Dem party??? Where did that come from? I didn't see any speeches talking about Sharpton as a hero. It is true that he used to be a "race-baiting" demogogue. He has mellowed in his old age. JJ is a mixed bag. He has done a lot of good things and likely gone overboard at times. But again, this is true of many in the Republican party as well. </font color>

To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, which is entirely controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting any employer from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.

<font color="blue">More BS. Why is any bill passed by any Dem legislature in the country considered representative of the Dem party in general? Not one of my Dem friends, nor the Dem convention, every mentioned this issue. Some Republicans in various parts have fought to prohibit the teaching of evolution in our schools. An ignorant stance, but it wouldn't be fair to say that was representative of the Republican Party, like this author does.</font color>

To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.

<font color="blue">I saw the video. I don't know why you would call it a hate video. Show me the hate in it. Stident? Yes. Like most youth-oriented music.</font color>

To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for president of the United States. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.

<font color="blue">Not sure of the reference here. It is true that Dems tend to be more anti-violence than anti-language or anti-sex. </font color>

To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America.

<font color="blue">Traditional America? What is that? America has a lot of traditions. </font color>

That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks like Sean Penn and Robert "Castro-is-a-great-leader" Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values. Even The New York Times, in a post-election analysis, wrote of "the possibility that activist entertainers' fervent endorsements might have cost Mr. Kerry the election."

<font color="blue">This logical error is so basic that I'm amazed we still have to bring it up over and over. Person X likes plan Y. Criticism of person X tells you nothing about plan Y. In general, I imagine racist rednecks voted for Bush a lot more than for Kerry, but they don't represent mainstream American values. So what? </font color>
To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates.

<font color="blue">Yes most Dems believe in universities and the ACLU and the UN. So? It is true that many conservatives have been brainwashed to think the ACLU is bad, but that is because most conservatives have no clue what the ACLU is fighting for. </font color>

To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is "Make love, not war." That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.

<font color="blue">More BS. The implication here is that Dems don't support the soldiers. Why don't you look back at the last four years of US legislative history and see who fought for more benefits and higher pay for our soldiers and vets? And see who opposed these (hint: they control the Senate and House).
I don't understand how conservatives can continue to not understand that you can be against a governments decision to go to war or how they went to war and still not be anti-soldier. It is such a simple concept.
Unfortunately, war IS a necessary evil - that doesn't mean the soldiers are.
</font color>

To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect any fellow American is accorded.

<font color="blue">True, but only because liberals dragged them screaming and kicking to this enlightened state. Only 15 years ago, most Americans were AGAINST gays having equal (non-marriage) rights. Conservative organizations didn't even want to see them portrayed on TV. Now Repubs are for civil unions - thanks to constant prodding from liberals. </font color>

But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.

<font color="blue">True, but that doesn't mean liberals don't have values. A minor point - both Kerry and Edwards came out against gay marriage. </font color>

Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.

<font color="blue">Yes, only because the "moral values" Republicans refused to allow the Dems to have an exception to save the life of the mother. Do your research. </font color>

Gov. Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as "the party without values." Indeed, the real question, as this observer sees it, is how has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?

<font color="blue">Ahhh... now it is "traditional values" the Dems don't have. Not values per se. Funny how that slipped in there. And I guess "traditional values" means agreeing with the conservatives on social issues. Well then I guess you are right. We Dems tend to favor reality over substance. </font color>

<font color="blue"> Unfortunately, the right wing pundits HAVE succeeded in selling this line of crap to a large number of Americans. By cherry picking "facts", distorting logic, ignoring contradictory evidence and/or context, running with isolated incidents and portraying them as pervasive, they have painted this BS picture of Dems to the gullible.

Give me a break...</font color>

crawdaddio

11-15-2004, 11:55 AM

Well said Ross. It's nice to see some "good ole' fashioned, traditional american" common sense on the board once in awhile.

~DC

Wally_in_Cincy

11-15-2004, 12:05 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Nice try Wally. It does nothing to prove the specifics of the original post.

Peace
~DC <hr /></blockquote>

calm down, it was a joke

Deeman2

11-15-2004, 12:12 PM

Ross,

You just don't get it. As for me, I'm really glad you don't. This is a free country and you have every right to believe the things you do. If the above post does not, at least, make you understand exactly where America stands, weather you agree or not, Wally will be posting an exact replica of that map in 2008. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I didn't care if Mel Gibson wanted me to vote for Bush and most of us don't care if Redford wants us to vote Democrat.

I think this was a wonderful post. I wish I had the words to have written that.

Deeman

eg8r

11-15-2004, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By cherry picking "facts", distorting logic, ignoring contradictory evidence and/or context, running with isolated incidents and portraying them as pervasive, they have painted this BS picture of Dems to the gullible.

<hr /></blockquote> LOL, this is complete BS. Reason being, you act like the Dems don't do the same thing.

Weren't all these gullible people fooled when Clinton ran for office and when Gore ran (he did win the majority of gullibles). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif This is one reason I believe the Dems have a problem winning an election lately, anyone that thinks differently than them must be dumb and now gullible.

This is the same BS the Dems do when they attribute criticism of a Dem as calling them unpatriotic.

eg8r

highsea

11-15-2004, 12:34 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.

<font color="blue">Yes, only because the "moral values" Republicans refused to allow the Dems to have an exception to save the life of the mother. Do your research. </font color><hr /></blockquote>IIRC, the bill passed both houses by a 2-1 margin or so. Congress passed this legislation twice under Clinton, but he vetoed both times. So lots of Dems in congress have voted for it also.

Congress was stupid for not including the provision for the health of the woman. The Supreme Court already ruled earlier on that, and said any law which does not account for the health of the woman is unconstitutional.

The current law has been ruled unconstitutional for the same reasons by 2 Federal District Courts. (California and New York)

wolfdancer

11-15-2004, 02:07 PM

Casey, I found this Dave Pell column interesting:

The trouble with the movie Alien vs Predator is
that whichever side you take, you find yourself
rooting for a monster.

And that's largely the story of election 2004 as well.

Since many have been tempted to reduce the recent
election to a battle over blue and red state
values, it should be noted that the area in which
we may have suffered the greatest lapse in values
was where they ultimately matter the most; the
sane center.

Beyond all else, the recent election results and
the campaigns that preceded them were a massive
win for the margins.

We expect extremism from the valleys of deep red
and deep blue. We also expect that extremism to be
scorned by the rest of us who supposedly live
along the purple mountains of moderate majesty. We
got a lot of extremism. We didn't get much scorn.

Each of the major political parties is made up of
two key segments. First, there are the extremists
at the margin, vocal and active minorities that
push the envelope when it comes to truth, fairplay
and common sense. Second, there are those in the
moderate majority who refuse to distance
themselves from the extremists because they hope
that extremism, hate or just plain stupidity may
help swing a few votes to their party's advantage.

At one point, early in the last campaign, MoveOn
began pushing an ad that featured the Statue of
Liberty with an Abu Ghraib hood over her head. I
thought it was inappropriate and would, if
anything, cost the Democrats votes. I emailed
around a message to several left-leaning bloggers.
None posted a protest about the MoveOn ads. One
notable blogger emailed back to explain that he
barely had time to keep up with all of the bad
things that the other side was doing. There was no
way he could focus on this.

That about sums up the 2004 campaign season, no?

How many people in the Republican Party (not
operatives or strategists, people) blasted the
hate-filled gay marriage bans or ripped the Swift
Boat smear campaign? How many of them admit idiots
like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity don't speak for
them? Is being associated with the foolishness of
Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes and the madness of Pat
Robertson really worth a few swing votes? How many
on the right distanced themselves from the sick
fear mongering employed by Cheney and Bush?

And the left has their own problems. How many
intelligent Democrats had the guts to criticize
the extreme positions taken by Michael Moore? Is
his version of reality any less simpleminded and
distorted than that held by his chief foe? How
many liberal blogs excitedly linked to the nearly
meaningless video by Eminem? I mean the guy's
rapping borders on the genius. But his
understanding of political issues doesn't. He was
treated as a conquering hero because of the
perception (equally false because of its
condescension and absurdity) that his final
weekend rhymes would hurt Bush and stir up young voters.

How many people on either side had the guts to
criticize the slop spewed on their behalf across
the airwaves by the many 527 groups and pandering
pundits in their corner?

None. Both sides allowed themselves and their
causes to be represented by those who they quietly
find repulsive. If it hurts the other guy, then
the ends justify the means. It was, we convinced
ourselves, an election too close and too important
to interrupt with issues of dignity. If Michael
Moore in his ridiculous baseball cap can get my
side votes, bring it on. If pretending that gay
marriage threatens me or that Sean Hannity is
really smart will mean a better turnout on my
side, bring it on.

The only trouble is that what we brought on are
the extremists. Your side may not be your side
anymore. The deep reds and the deep blues are
gaining in numbers and becoming the giant purple
people eaters. The GOP sold its soul to the
religious extremists on the far right for whom
evolution is a four letter word. The Dems traded
their own crumbling platform for an anyone but
Bush attack plan, wherein any messenger with an
anti-Bush bent was welcomed into the fold and
granted a leadership status equal to their volume.

The medium, we are told, is the message. Well, in
American politics, for most of us, the message
should be medium. But it's not. And the
American middle sold its own soul for the
privilege of being silent in an anything to win
era. The sane center is shrinking while the margins are becoming a little less marginalized....www.nextdraft.com/
AND
why you should only visit Red State Zoos:

http://www.nextdraft.com/gtp/fccgtp.html

crawdaddio

11-15-2004, 02:20 PM

Good article, thanks.

Peace
~DC

highsea

11-15-2004, 02:54 PM

I agree with the author that the extremists from each side have somewhat hijacked the parties. Because I voted republican, I am assumed to be a gay-bashing, warmongering, right wing fanatical Christian who is against a woman's right to choice, anti-science, and probably a stupid redneck to boot.

When the truth is that I'm just a stupid warmongering redneck! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Seriously, I never bought into the whole "moral values" thing. What a stupid question to put on an exit poll. If you want to make the poll worthless, you couldn't pick a better question. How many people are going to come out as against "moral values"? Dumb.

Then, right on cue, the media assumed that to mean Religious Christian Values.

Anyway, in Alien vs. Predator, I'll root for Predator. They both had infrared vision, but Predator had better technology. Also, he was more selective, where Alien just wanted to kill everything. So I vote for Predator because he had better "moral values". /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SPetty

11-15-2004, 03:46 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer quoting Dave Pell:</font><hr>Since many have been tempted to reduce the recent election to a battle over blue and red state values, it should be noted that the area in which we may have suffered the greatest lapse in values was where they ultimately matter the most; the sane center.<hr /></blockquote>After seeing Wally's red and blue map several times, I've been wondering if anyone has a slightly different map: I'd like to see the colors broken down a little differently and see if it makes a difference:

blue if Bush got more than 60% of the vote
red if Kerry got more than 60% of the vote
some other color for the remaining counties

That would show us the middle 20%.

Would the map look much different?

Ross

11-15-2004, 05:14 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> Ross,

You just don't get it. As for me, I'm really glad you don't. This is a free country and you have every right to believe the things you do. If the above post does not, at least, make you understand exactly where America stands, weather you agree or not, Wally will be posting an exact replica of that map in 2008. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I didn't care if Mel Gibson wanted me to vote for Bush and most of us don't care if Redford wants us to vote Democrat.

I think this was a wonderful post. I wish I had the words to have written that.

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

I think I DO get it. I think you are misinterpreting my response to mean that the election doesn't have a strong message for Dems. I think it does. I just thought the OP was a gross distortion of the true picture of "Dem values".

The post selectively pulled names from the most extreme left Dems (Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Sean Penn, and Robert Redford). Only two of these were actual Dem politicians, and both were resoundingly rejected by Dem voters. If they represented Dem values then why didn't Dems vote for them?

The OP was exactly as valid as if I pointed out that most Americans don't share the values of Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, or Alan Keyes and therefore the Repubs "don't have values."

In interpreting this election the liberal mistake would be to dismiss it as just a fluke or due to the evangelicals voting against gay marriage, or Rove doing a good job. It is true that these things put Bush over the top, but he couldn't have won without the vote of middle America. I understand that Deeman.

The equivalent conservative mistake would be to take the results of this election to mean that most of America agrees with the social part of the Republican Party platform, especially the parts having to do with "values". If you think that is true, talk to the undecideds you know or read the posts of other conservatives on this board. But social conservatives are working full time to paint this victory as a mandate for their agenda.

In reality, the middle 10% of "undecideds" won this election for Bush. And if you talk to them you will find that most did not vote for him because he was anti-abortion or because MM was at the convention or because Redford is a Dem. In fact many of these same undecided voters voted for Clinton previously. Why the switch? They voted for Bush because he seemed to be more consistent on his positions, because they trusted him more on defense issues which were high on the list because of Iraq and Al Qaeda, because he was a known quantity, because he seemed more likable, and because Kerry did not have a strong consistent message or stand.

I do think the Dems have a big problem though. Part of it is that they are victims of their own success. Race relations used to be horrible, with southern conservatives favoring continuing segregation, blacks and women getting no opportunities in business, etc. Liberals fought hard to end segregation and to get equal rights for minorities and women. Well, they largely succeeded (and occasionally overshot their mark --unreasonable quotas, for example). Segregation is now illegal and women have made it into the corporate boardroom and half the doctors and lawyers, etc are now women. So Dems no longer have an automatic in with those demographics.

Gays used to have no rights - not even the right to be found out without danger to themselves. They were kicked out of the military if discovered, their partners couldn't get insurance from their employer, and conservatives had TV shows pulled if they had a gay character. Liberals fought conservatives on these issues and won. Domestic partner rights are now widespread across the country, don't ask don't tell is now policy, and gay characters have more TV shows than they know what to do with. So Dems lost the ability to appeal to middle of the roaders who the blatant injustice of the previous discrimination. So the only thing left to making gays fully equivalent to straights in terms of rights is the right to marry and the US is not quite ready for that yet.

Now Bush has even co-opted another traditional Dem stance - protecting illegal aliens from abuse, etc. Bush is proposing a fairly large scale amnesty program, which may give him some problems with the "values" of the west and southwestern US.

Liberals have always fought conservatives for increased tolerance of differences. (How quickly we forget. Conservatives, the "values" people, used to blast males with hair over an inch long as un-American and some were happy to beat them up. To help them be more American, I guess.) But fortunately, the liberals have prevailed. Socially, the Republicans now accept 90% of what liberals have fought for over the past 100 years.

So there are still social problems for Dems to fight for - access to routine health care for all Americans for example. Crappy paying jobs or no jobs for blue collar or unskilled workers. And of course there is residual sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

But we've accomplished so much for women, minorities, gays, etc., we've lost an automatic appeal to these formerly discriminatied groups.

So you are right - the election does have lessons in it for Dems about changing times. But it doesn't say that Dems don't have "real American" values.

Also remember that when 48% of the voters vote for challenger and 51% for the incumbent, it suggests a pretty evenly split electorate -- not that one party only represents the "true America."

wolfdancer

11-15-2004, 08:19 PM

Great reply!!!!....the winner against Godzilla???...but, I'm not sure how he fared against Mothra

nhp

11-15-2004, 11:02 PM

Isn't it true that red states generally have a higher divorce rate than blue states? What does that tell you about values?

SnakebyteXX

11-15-2004, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
After seeing Wally's red and blue map several times, I've been wondering if anyone has a slightly different map: I'd like to see the colors broken down a little differently and see if it makes a difference <hr /></blockquote>

Here's a breakdown of the 2004 vote by population density -

http://img12.paintedover.com/uploads/12/us_map_pop_density.jpg

Here's a proportional Electoral College Map of the US.

http://img12.paintedover.com/uploads/12/us_map_electoral_prop.jpg

Hope this helps.

Snake

Gayle in MD

11-16-2004, 05:35 AM

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Well said, and so true. My compliments.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

11-16-2004, 06:04 AM

That is interesting, where did you get that information. If they have that information, they probably have it broken down by county, so that would be interesting also.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy

11-16-2004, 06:37 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty, the queen of the search engine /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif :</font><hr> I'd like to see the colors broken down a little differently and see if it makes a difference:
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

if i find something better i'll post it

SnakebyteXX

11-16-2004, 08:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it true that red states generally have a higher divorce rate than blue states? What does that tell you about values? <hr /></blockquote>

Area % are or have been divorced
South 27%
Midwest 27%
West 26%
Northeast 19%

The Associated Press computed divorce statistics from data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health.4 They found that Nevada had the highest divorce rate, at 8.5 divorces per 1,000 people in 1998. Nevada has had a reputation as a quickie divorce location for decades. People from other states visited Nevada, fulfilled their residency requirements, got divorced and returned home single.

The data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.

Some of the factors that contribute to a high divorce rate in the Bible Belt, relative to Northeastern states are:

More couples enter their first marriage at a younger age.
Average household incomes are lower (OK and AR rate 46th and 47th in the U.S.)
They have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, a denomination that does not recognize divorce. Anthony Jordan, executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention in Oklahoma commented: "I applaud the Catholics," says Jordan. "I don't think we as Protestant evangelists have done nearly as well preparing people for marriage. And in the name of being loving and accepting, we have not placed the stigma on divorce that we should have."
Some factor in conservative Protestantism -- which is prevalent in the Bible Belt -- may causes a higher level of divorce.
.................................................

Divorce rates among Christian groups:
The slogan: "The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent". 8 [Emphasis ours]. Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Council on the Family said that for "...born-again Christian couples who marry...in the church after having received premarital counseling...and attend church regularly and pray daily together..." experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages -- or 0.00256 percent. 9

A recent study by the Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The sampling error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:

11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

According to the Dallas Morning News, a Dallas TX newspaper, the national study "raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, [and] even brought on a little holy anger." This caused George Barna to write a letter to his supporters, saying that he is standing by his data, even though it is upsetting. He said that "We rarely find substantial differences" between the moral behavior of Christians and non-Christians. Barna Project Director Meg Flammang said: "We would love to be able to report that Christians are living very distinct lives and impacting the community, but ... in the area of divorce rates they continue to be the same." Both statements seem to be projecting the belief that conservative Christians, liberal Christians have the same divorce rate. This disagrees with their own data.

The survey has come under some criticism:

David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University has said that the survey doesn't make sense. He based this belief on his assessment that Christians follow biblical models of the family, making a bond that "the secular world doesn't have...It just stands to reason that the bond of religion is protective of marriage, and I believe it is."
Tom Ellis of the Southern Baptist Convention suggests that the Barna poll is inaccurate because the people contacted may have called themselves born-again Christians, without having previously made a real commitment to God. He said: "We believe that there is something more to being a Christian...Just saying you are Christian is not going to guarantee that your marriage is going to stay together." 9
Some researchers have suggested that religion may have little or no effect on divorce rates. The apparently higher rate among born-again Christians, and lower rate among Atheists and Agnostics may be due to the influence of financial and/or educational factors.

One reason for the discrepancy of beliefs about divorce rates among born-again Christians may be that their churches are unaware of the true number of divorcing couples in their midst.

Many couples would find it difficult to continue attending services in the same congregation after their marital separation; meeting at church would be awkward. So, they drop out.
Many probably find that the climate in their church is very negative towards divorcing couples. So, they move to other congregations that are either more accepting of divorce, or are unaware of their marital status.

Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: "In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot." Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."

Ron Barrier, Spokespersonn for American Atheists remarked on these findings with some rather caustic comments against organized religion. He said: "These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher calibre than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage." 2

U.S. DIVORCE RATES: For various faith groups, age groups, &amp; geographic areas (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)

Deeman2

11-16-2004, 08:32 AM

Ross,

Well said and well thought out. I did misunderstand your level of understanding. Good Post....

Well said and well thought out. I did misunderstand your level of understanding. Good Post....

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Deeman and Gayle for that acknowledgement. I appreciate it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif And extra kudos to you Deeman since it shows character to be able to "hear" across the liberal-conservative "divide."

Well said and well thought out. I did misunderstand your level of understanding. Good Post....

Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Deeman and Gayle for that acknowledgement. I appreciate it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif And extra kudos to you Deeman since it shows character to be able to "hear" across the liberal-conservative "divide."

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Ross,

May your next badly struck nine ball deflect off a tiny fleck of Master's chalk and roll into smoothly into the heart of the pocket! /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Deeman </font color>

Ross

11-16-2004, 04:36 PM

Wow, thanks Deeman, that IS a good wish! Hopefully it will happen in a hill-hill money match against one of the local "I'm always unlucky" whiners...

(Not that I would ever strike a 9-ball badly./ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

Ross

11-16-2004, 05:55 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. The Democratic candidate and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.

<font color="blue">Yes, only because the "moral values" Republicans refused to allow the Dems to have an exception to save the life of the mother. Do your research. </font color><hr /></blockquote>IIRC, the bill passed both houses by a 2-1 margin or so. Congress passed this legislation twice under Clinton, but he vetoed both times. So lots of Dems in congress have voted for it also.

Congress was stupid for not including the provision for the health of the woman. The Supreme Court already ruled earlier on that, and said any law which does not account for the health of the woman is unconstitutional.

The current law has been ruled unconstitutional for the same reasons by 2 Federal District Courts. (California and New York) <hr /></blockquote>

You have it exactly right, Highsea. Apparently, the bills that Clinton vetoed did have exceptions for the life of the mother, but incredibly the 2003 bill signed into law does not. In the House, the about 60 of 200 Dems voted for it and that coupled with almost all Repubs got it passed. In the Senate again most Dems voted against it, but some supported it and it passed 64-34.

As you said not including provisions for saving the life of the mother was either stupid (since that has been ruled unconstitutional), immoral (from my point of view, since the mother's life should come first), and/or political (it got the legislators votes, even though they knew it would be struck down.)

Personally, I think abortions should be illegal after the usual viability point of about 24 weeks (6 months) unless an abortion is necessary to protect the health of the baby or if it has just been discovered that the fetus has very serious genetic defects or serious brain damage, etc.